From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 16:30:54 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/2 v4] syscalls: Add set_mempolicy numa tests. In-Reply-To: <2092842506.4709417.1551685162547.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <20190228153425.10286-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <20190228153425.10286-2-chrubis@suse.cz> <2092842506.4709417.1551685162547.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190306153054.GC12479@rei> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > > We also check for free memory on each numa memory mode and skip nodes > > that don't have sufficient amount of memory for a particular test. The > > tests checks usuall for twice as much memory per each node in order to > > allow for allocations to be "misplaced". > > I wonder if we should add some constant to it. I have foggy idea, that > kernel keeps some reserves. Hmm, no idea about this, I guess that adding a few megabytes for a good luck in the library wouldn't do any harm. > > The tests for file based shared interleaved mappings are no longer > > mapping a single small file but rather than that we accumulate statistic > > for larger amount of files over longer period of time and we also allow > > for small offset (currently 10%). We should probably also increase the > > number of samples we take as currently it's about 5MB in total on x86 > > although I haven't managed to make this test fail so far. This also > > fixes the test on Btrfs where the synthetic test that expects the pages > > to be distributed exactly equally fails. > > API looks good to me, ACK. Maybe you could split it into 2 commits, one for > new library API, and one for new tests. Sure, will do. Ok to commit the library and set_mempolicy() tests with fixed nits you pointed out below or should I spin v5? -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz